(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.02.27 2018가단8100

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.02.27 2018가단8100

약정금

Text

1. The defendant's KRW 40,010,844 for each of the plaintiffs and 5% per annum from June 12, 2016 to February 27, 2019 for each of them.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 12, 2013, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 50 million, respectively, into the Defendant’s DNA bank account.

B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiffs a total of KRW 45 million per week from June 17, 2013 to May 14, 2014, as indicated in the “payment date” and “payment amount” column in the attached calculation statement.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 1 to 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The key point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was that the Defendant lent KRW 100 million per share for three years (1.56 weeks each week) from the lending of KRW 100 million to KRW 156 million per share. Since the Defendant paid KRW 45 million, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million (hereinafter “the said monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant”) and the promised amount of KRW 11,56 million after deducting the said payment from KRW 156,00,000 (5,000 won each of the Plaintiffs) and the said repayment period (the final repayment period on June 11, 2016) and damages for delay from June 12, 2016.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that E invests money in E using the defendant's account with the knowledge that it operates an illegal game site, and the money which the defendant sent to the plaintiffs was sent to E through its own account upon request by E. Even if the defendant's counter-party to the transaction, it is not obligated to return the money that the plaintiffs paid to the counter-party to the transaction.

3. Determination

A. (1) Determination as to the other party to the instant monetary transaction is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the instant contract. In the event that there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a juristic act and the interpretation of the intent of the party is at issue, the relevant parties shall comprehensively consider the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the genuine intent of the

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.06.16 2016가합1946

-울산지방법원 2017.10.25 2016가단3231

-수원지방법원성남지원 2013.07.09 2012가단36660

-수원지방법원 2017.03.22 2016가단516291

-부산지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가합554